Inez M Verpalen1,2, Jolien P de Boer3, Marlot Linstra4, Roelien L I Pol5, Ingrid M Nijholt6, Chrit T W Moonen7, Lambertus W Bartels7,8, Arie Franx9, Martijn F Boomsma6, Manon N G Braat10. 1. Department of Radiology, Isala Hospital, Dokter van Heesweg 2, 8025 AB, Zwolle, The Netherlands. i.m.verpalen@isala.nl. 2. Department of Radiology, University Medical Centre Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands. i.m.verpalen@isala.nl. 3. Department of Gynaecology, Martini Hospital, Groningen, The Netherlands. 4. Department of Gynaecology, Spaarne Gasthuis, Haarlem, The Netherlands. 5. Department of Gynaecology, Isala Hospital, Zwolle, The Netherlands. 6. Department of Radiology, Isala Hospital, Dokter van Heesweg 2, 8025 AB, Zwolle, The Netherlands. 7. Department of Molecular Imaging, University Medical Centre Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands. 8. Image Sciences Institute, Imaging Division, University Medical Centre Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands. 9. Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Erasmus Medical Centre, Rotterdam, The Netherlands. 10. Department of Radiology, University Medical Centre Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Since 2004, uterine fibroids have been treated with MR-HIFU, but there are persevering doubts on long-term efficacy to date. In the Focused Ultrasound Myoma Outcome Study (FUMOS), we evaluated long-term outcomes after MR-HIFU therapy, primarily to assess the reintervention rate. METHODS: Data was retrospectively collected from 123 patients treated with MR-HIFU at our hospital from 2010 to 2017. Follow-up duration and baseline (MRI) characteristics were retrieved from medical records. Treatment failures, adverse events, and the nonperfused volume percentage (NPV%) were determined. Patients received a questionnaire about reinterventions, recovery time, satisfaction, and pregnancy outcomes. Restrictive treatment protocols were compared with unrestrictive (aiming for complete ablation) treatments. Subgroups were analyzed based on the achieved NPV < 50 or ≥ 50%. RESULTS: Treatment failures occurred in 12.1% and the number of adverse events was 13.7%. Implementation of an unrestrictive treatment protocol significantly (p = 0.006) increased the mean NPV% from 37.4% [24.3-53.0] to 57.4% [33.5-76.5]. At 63.5 ± 29.0 months follow-up, the overall reintervention rate was 33.3% (n = 87). All reinterventions were performed within 34 months follow-up, but within 21 months in the unrestrictive group. The reintervention rate significantly (p = 0.002) decreased from 48.8% in the restrictive group (n = 43; follow-up 87.5 ± 7.3 months) to 18.2% in the unrestrictive group (n = 44; follow-up 40.0 ± 22.1 months). The median recovery time was 2.0 [1.0-7.0] days. Treatment satisfaction rate was 72.4% and 4/11 women completed family planning after MR-HIFU. CONCLUSIONS: The unrestrictive treatment protocol significantly increased the NPV%. Unrestrictive MR-HIFU treatments led to acceptable reintervention rates comparable to other reimbursed uterine-sparing treatments, and no reinterventions were reported beyond 21 months follow-up. KEY POINTS: • All reinterventions were performed within 34 months follow-up, but in the unrestrictive treatment protocol group, no reinterventions were reported beyond 21 months follow-up. • The NPV% was negatively associated with the risk of reintervention; thus, operators should aim for complete ablation during MR-guided HIFU therapy of uterine fibroids. • Unrestrictive treatments have led to acceptable reintervention rates after MR-guided HIFU therapy compared to other reimbursed uterine-sparing treatments.
OBJECTIVES: Since 2004, uterine fibroids have been treated with MR-HIFU, but there are persevering doubts on long-term efficacy to date. In the Focused Ultrasound Myoma Outcome Study (FUMOS), we evaluated long-term outcomes after MR-HIFU therapy, primarily to assess the reintervention rate. METHODS: Data was retrospectively collected from 123 patients treated with MR-HIFU at our hospital from 2010 to 2017. Follow-up duration and baseline (MRI) characteristics were retrieved from medical records. Treatment failures, adverse events, and the nonperfused volume percentage (NPV%) were determined. Patients received a questionnaire about reinterventions, recovery time, satisfaction, and pregnancy outcomes. Restrictive treatment protocols were compared with unrestrictive (aiming for complete ablation) treatments. Subgroups were analyzed based on the achieved NPV < 50 or ≥ 50%. RESULTS: Treatment failures occurred in 12.1% and the number of adverse events was 13.7%. Implementation of an unrestrictive treatment protocol significantly (p = 0.006) increased the mean NPV% from 37.4% [24.3-53.0] to 57.4% [33.5-76.5]. At 63.5 ± 29.0 months follow-up, the overall reintervention rate was 33.3% (n = 87). All reinterventions were performed within 34 months follow-up, but within 21 months in the unrestrictive group. The reintervention rate significantly (p = 0.002) decreased from 48.8% in the restrictive group (n = 43; follow-up 87.5 ± 7.3 months) to 18.2% in the unrestrictive group (n = 44; follow-up 40.0 ± 22.1 months). The median recovery time was 2.0 [1.0-7.0] days. Treatment satisfaction rate was 72.4% and 4/11 women completed family planning after MR-HIFU. CONCLUSIONS: The unrestrictive treatment protocol significantly increased the NPV%. Unrestrictive MR-HIFU treatments led to acceptable reintervention rates comparable to other reimbursed uterine-sparing treatments, and no reinterventions were reported beyond 21 months follow-up. KEY POINTS: • All reinterventions were performed within 34 months follow-up, but in the unrestrictive treatment protocol group, no reinterventions were reported beyond 21 months follow-up. • The NPV% was negatively associated with the risk of reintervention; thus, operators should aim for complete ablation during MR-guided HIFU therapy of uterine fibroids. • Unrestrictive treatments have led to acceptable reintervention rates after MR-guided HIFU therapy compared to other reimbursed uterine-sparing treatments.
Authors: Emily P Barnard; Ahmed M AbdElmagied; Lisa E Vaughan; Amy L Weaver; Shannon K Laughlin-Tommaso; Gina K Hesley; David A Woodrum; Vanessa L Jacoby; Maureen P Kohi; Thomas M Price; Angel Nieves; Michael J Miller; Bijan J Borah; Krzysztof R Gorny; Phyllis C Leppert; Lisa G Peterson; Elizabeth A Stewart Journal: Am J Obstet Gynecol Date: 2017-01-05 Impact factor: 8.661
Authors: Marlijne E Ikink; Robbert J Nijenhuis; Helena M Verkooijen; Marianne J Voogt; Paul J H M Reuwer; Albert J Smeets; Paul N M Lohle; Maurice A A J van den Bosch Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2014-08-13 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Donna Day Baird; David B Dunson; Michael C Hill; Deborah Cousins; Joel M Schectman Journal: Am J Obstet Gynecol Date: 2003-01 Impact factor: 8.661
Authors: M J Voogt; H Trillaud; Y S Kim; W P Th M Mali; J Barkhausen; L W Bartels; R Deckers; N Frulio; H Rhim; H K Lim; T Eckey; H J Nieminen; C Mougenot; B Keserci; J Soini; T Vaara; M O Köhler; S Sokka; Maurice A A J van den Bosch Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2011-09-08 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: K J Anneveldt; I M Verpalen; I M Nijholt; J R Dijkstra; R D van den Hoed; M Van't Veer-Ten Kate; E de Boer; J A C van Osch; E Heijman; H R Naber; E Ista; A Franx; S Veersema; J A F Huirne; J M Schutte; M F Boomsma Journal: Insights Imaging Date: 2021-12-18
Authors: Kimberley J Anneveldt; Ingrid M Nijholt; Joke M Schutte; Jeroen R Dijkstra; Geert W J Frederix; Erwin Ista; Inez M Verpalen; Sebastiaan Veersema; Judith A F Huirne; Wouter J K Hehenkamp; Martijn F Boomsma Journal: JMIR Res Protoc Date: 2021-11-24